Oct. 4
TEXAS----impending execution
Texas Set to Execute Man Who Pleaded Guilty to Killing 2
Summoned to court to answer charges that he made a threatening phone call to
his neighbor's home in a rural East Texas county more than 2 years earlier,
Barney Fuller Jr.'s anger smoldered as he began drinking.
2 nights later, Fuller left his home with a 12-gauge shotgun, a military-style
semi-automatic carbine and a .40-caliber pistol and carried the weapons about
200 yards to the home of neighbors Nathan and Annette Copeland. He fired 59
shots into their house, kicked in the back door and walked inside, opening fire
again. Nathan Copeland, 43, was killed in his bedroom, shot four times. His
wife, 39, was gunned down in a bathroom while calling 911. 1 of their 2
children was shot but survived.
On Wednesday, Fuller, 58, is set for lethal injection for the May 2003 rampage
outside Lovelady, about 100 miles north of Houston.
He'd be the 7th convicted killer executed this year in Texas and the 1st in 6
months. His execution would be only the 16th this year nationally, a downturn
fueled by fewer death sentences overall, courts halting scheduled executions
for additional reviews, and death penalty states encountering difficulties
obtaining drugs for lethal injections.
Hours after the shooting frenzy, Fuller called Houston County authorities and
told them he would surrender peacefully at his home.
He pleaded guilty to capital murder, declined to be in the courtroom after
individual questioning of prospective jurors began at his July 2004 trial, and
asked that the trial's punishment phase go on without his presence. He didn't
return to the courtroom until jurors returned with their death verdict.
"He was very adamant not wanting to be there," William House, one of his trial
lawyers, recalled. "From the very start, he just really didn't care."
Last year Fuller asked his lawyer to stop filing appeals.
"I do not want to go on living in this hell-hole," he wrote attorney Jason
Cassel. "Do not do anything for me which will prolong my appeals and time here
on Texas death row."
A federal judge in June ruled Fuller was competent to make that decision.
Fuller had testified at a hearing he was satisfied with his legal help, no one
had coerced him and he was "ready to move on."
His threatening phone call to Annette Copeland came after Fuller, who drew the
ire of neighbors like her for shooting his weapons on the rural property, shot
out an electrical transformer that provided power to the Copelands' home.
"Happy New Year," he told her in the Jan. 1, 2001, call. "I'm going to kill
you."
A sheriff's department dispatcher who took Annette Copeland's 911 call about
1:30 a.m. on May 14, 2003, heard a man say: "Party's over, bitch," followed by
a popping sound. Annette Copeland was found with 3 bullet wounds to her head.
The couple's 14-year-old son, Cody, was hit twice and survived, and their
10-year-old daughter, Courtney, avoided gunshots because Fuller couldn't find
the light in her dark bedroom. Cody found his mother's cellphone and called
police.
Cindy Garner, the former Houston County district attorney who prosecuted
Fuller, described him as mean and without remorse.
"A lot of times in the country folks argue about chickens and dogs," Garner
said. "He was shooting his mouth off, but no one had any idea that something
like this was going to happen, where he was just going to march down the road
like Rambo and tear up an entire family."
(source: Associated Press)
********************
Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----19
Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----537
Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #
20---------October 5----------------Barney Fuller---------538
21---------October 19---------------Terry Edwards---------539
22---------November 2---------------Ramiro Gonzales-------540
23---------December 7---------------John Battaglia--------541
24---------February 7---------------Tilon Carter----------542
(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)
*****************************
The punishment for having a bad lawyer shouldn't be the death penalty--Duane
Buck would probably not be on death row had he been given a more competent
lawyer. Will he receive justice from the US supreme court?
A deeply troubling truth about the death penalty is that it is often handed
down not to people who commit the worst crimes, but on those assigned the worst
lawyer to represent them. Buck v Davis, a Texas case that will be argued before
the US supreme court on 5 October, offers an extreme example of just how deadly
bad lawyering can be.
Duane Buck was charged with capital murder in Houston, Texas, in 1997. He was
too poor to hire his own lawyer so the judge appointed two lawyers to defend
him, one of whom has such an abysmal record in capital cases that the New York
Times called him: "A Lawyer Known Best for Losing Capital Cases". His
performance in Mr Buck's was consistent with this record.
In order for a death sentence to be imposed, Texas law requires the prosecutor
to prove, and the jury to unanimously find, that the defendant is likely to be
dangerous in the future. In Mr Buck's case, future dangerousness was the
central disputed issue at sentencing. The prosecutors did not have a strong
case that Mr Buck would be a danger in the future. Indeed, the evidence showed
that Mr Buck was not likely to not pose a danger while in prison. But the
court-appointed defense lawyers, with Mr Buck's life on the line, handed the
prosecutors powerful evidence for sentencing him to death: Mr Buck was more
likely to be dangerous because he is black.
That was the conclusion of a psychologist the defense lawyers retained as an
expert. The psychologist prepared a report stating that being "black" is a
"statistical factor" that created an "increased probability" that Mr Buck would
commit criminal acts of violence in the future. The lawyers appointed to
represent Mr Buck called the expert to the witness stand, elicited his
testimony that Mr Buck was more likely to be dangerous because he is black, and
moved the expert's report into evidence.
On cross-examination, the prosecutor emphasized the relationship between race
and future dangerousness, asking the psychologist if "the race factor, black,
increases the future dangerousness for various complicated reasons; is that
correct?" "Yes," the psychologist answered, confirming a pernicious - and false
- stereotype about black men and criminality. The court-appointed lawyers did
not object. The judge said nothing. The jurors, after lengthy deliberations,
during which they asked for - and received - a copy of the psychologist's
report, found Mr Buck a future danger. He was sentenced to death.
The presentation of the psychologist's expert testimony was egregious and
inexcusable incompetence on the part of Mr Buck's court-appointed lawyers. And
it is the focus of Mr Buck's claim before the supreme court that his "trial
counsel was constitutionally ineffective". The lawyers had the psychologist's
report mentioning race as a factor in their possession before they called him
to testify. The psychologist had testified in other cases before Mr Buck's
trial that race increases the probability of future dangerousness.
The consideration of such evidence was so clearly wrong and prejudicial that
John Cornyn, who was attorney general at the time and now represents Texas in
the Senate, conceded that the evidence should not have been admitted in 7
cases, including Mr Buck's. Each of these cases received new sentencing
hearings - except Mr Buck's.
The incompetence of the court-appointed lawyers is undeniable. The danger of
race influencing the capital sentencing decision has long been recognized.
Competent defense lawyers take every precaution to prevent race from becoming a
factor in the sentencing decision.
No competent defense lawyer would present the expert testimony of a
psychologist who had repeatedly testified in other cases that race was a factor
contributing to future dangerousness and was going to do so in Mr Buck's case.
It is unfathomable. And it could not have been more prejudicial.
Such testimony could only reinforce racial stereotypes that would increase the
likelihood that Mr Buck would be sentenced to death. The supreme court should
correct this grave miscarriage of justice by holding that Mr Buck was denied
his right to a competent lawyer and setting aside his death sentence.
(source: The Guardian)
OHIO:
Clemency hearing set for inmate with January execution date
Ohio has scheduled a clemency hearing for the 1st inmate scheduled for
execution next year under a new process for putting condemned prisoners to
death.
Ronald Phillips is set to die Jan. 12 for the 1993 rape and killing of his
girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter.
The state prisons agency on Tuesday scheduled a Dec. 1 hearing during which
Phillips' attorneys can ask the Ohio Parole Board for mercy. Gov. John Kasich,
a Republican, will have the final say.
The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction said Monday that it plans to
execute Phillips and 2 other inmates next year with a 3-drug combination that's
similar to a method it used several years ago.
In 2013, the parole board voted unanimously against clemency for Phillips,
saying the killing was "among the worst of the worst."
"Words cannot convey the barbarity of the crime. It is simply unconscionable,"
the board said.
Board members also said they weren't convinced Phillips had fully accepted
responsibility. They said he tried to shift blame onto the girl's mother and
onto Phillips' father, for allegedly abusing Phillips as a child.
Phillips' execution was previously scheduled and delayed several times,
including when Kasich allowed time for a last-minute request by Phillips to
donate organs. The request was ultimately denied. Phillips wanted to donate a
kidney to his mother, who was on dialysis, and possibly his heart to his
sister.
Ohio is returning to a form of execution it used from 1999 to late 2006,
involving drugs that put inmates to sleep, paralyze them and stop their hearts.
The drugs are midazolam, rocuronium bromide and potassium chloride.
The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction won't say where the drugs are
from, citing a new state law that shields that information.
Experts say the state could have:
-- Bought the drugs from a pharmaceutical distribution company that obtained
them from a drugmaker that doesn't have strict controls in place to keep drugs
from being used in executions.
-- Bought the drugs from a distribution company that has them as overstock
from a time before such controls went into place.
-- Bought the drugs from a pharmacy that knows its identity won't be revealed
by the new law.
-- Obtained the drugs from a death penalty state with drugs it doesn't need.
"With the secrecy provisions, we have no way of knowing if drugs were obtained
legitimately or through some kind of misrepresentation," Robert Dunham,
executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes
capital punishment, said Tuesday.
(source: kansas.com)
KANSAS:
SCOTUS allows John Robinson's conviction, death sentence to stand
The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to review the case of John Robinson
leaving his capital murder conviction and death sentence intact, Kansas
Attorney General Derek Schmidt said.
The high court's denial means Robinson's conviction and death sentence, which
previously were affirmed by the Kansas Supreme Court, will stand on direct
appeal. The case will next be returned to the Kansas courts for further
proceedings under the Kansas death penalty statute. Although the U.S. Supreme
Court's action marks the end of Robinson's direct appeals, under both Kansas
and federal law Robinson has remaining options to seek further judicial review
through collateral proceedings.
Robinson was convicted in 2002 in Johnson County District Court of capital
murder in connection with the serial murders of at least 6 women.
This is the 1st death penalty case to exhaust direct appeals since the Kansas
Legislature reinstated the death penalty in 1994. Robinson is 1 of 10 people
under sentence of death in Kansas. The other death penalty cases that remain
pending at various stages of direct appeals before the Kansas Supreme Court
are: State v. Scott Cheever (Greenwood County); State v. Gary Kleypas (Crawford
County); State v. Jonathan Carr (Sedgwick County); State v. Reginald Carr
(Sedgwick County); State v. Sydney Gleason (Barton County); State v. Justin
Thurber (Cowley County); State v. Craig Kahler (Osage County); State v. Frazier
Glenn Miller (Johnson County); and State v. Kyle Flack (Franklin County).
In an 11th case, State v. Doug Belt (Sedgwick County), the defendant died in
prison, but the appeal remains pending and the Kansas Supreme Court held oral
argument on Sept. 16.
(source: sekvoice.com)
NEBRASKA:
Death penalty activists to speak in Lincoln
5 years after the controversial execution of Troy Anthony Davis in Georgia, his
sister Kimberly Davis and documentary filmmaker and author Jen Marlow will
discuss how his case affected the fight to abolish the death penalty.
Davis and Marlowe are the featured speakers at this year's Sorensen Lecture at
the Unitarian Church of Lincoln, 6300 A St., Sunday. The 7 p.m. lecture is free
and open to the public.
Marlowe is a Seattle-based author/documentary filmmaker and human rights
activist who wrote the book, "I Am Troy Davis," in 2011. Kimberly Davis travels
the country speaking about the death penalty.
The lecture honors the memory of C.A. Sorensen, a former attorney general of
Nebraska and death penalty opponent.
Nebraska voters in November will decide Nov. 8 whether to repeal a legislative
bill that abolished the death penalty in the state.
(source: Lincoln Journal Star)
CALIFORNIA:
Proposition 62 Backers: 'It's Time To End California's Death Penalty'
In 2005, Dionne Wilson was desperate for revenge. Her husband, Dan Niemi, a San
Leandro cop, was shot seven times and killed in an ambush while answering a
public disturbance call. The killer was on probation and desperate to avoid
going back to prison for having guns and drugs in his possession.
The Alameda County district attorney asked the jury to return a death sentence
for the killer, Irving Ramirez. And Wilson wanted it, too.
"I begged for it," Wilson remembers. "I told them they had to. They have to
give me this justice for my children and for my family."
Wilson got her wish. Ramirez was sentenced to death. But it didn't have the
effect she hoped for.
"That verdict was supposed to be the thing that made me feel better," Wilson
says. "And I felt nothing. All I felt was betrayed, disappointed, let down. I
was still full of hatred and anger, and it had nowhere to go. It made it worse.
It actually made it worse for me."
"The whole system is so broken that there really is no repairing it," Wilson
says. "I think what makes the most sense is just to end it. Let's be smart on
crime instead of this tough on crime that has utterly failed."
Wilson is not your typical crime victim advocate. Most not only want to keep
the death penalty, they want to speed up executions with Proposition 66.
Most of California's 58 district attorneys, including Anne Marie Schubert from
Sacramento, oppose Proposition 62. Schubert says the death penalty should be
reserved for what many call "the worst of the worst," whose heinous crimes
affected hundreds of victims.
"We're talking about well over 200 children, 44 or 45 police officers killed in
the line of duty," says Schubert. "We're talking about women who have been
kidnapped, raped and tortured. We're talking about serial killers, mass
killers."
Schubert says it would be an injustice to their victims if those death
sentences are overturned.
If there's 1 thing supporters and opponents of capital punishment agree on,
it's that California's death penalty as it is today doesn't work. Since
California reinstated capital punishment in 1978, about 875 death sentences
have been handed down.
Of the 119 deaths among condemned inmates in California, only 13 were the
result of a state execution. The vast majority died of natural causes or
suicide. The last execution occurred in 2006. That same year federal Judge
Jeremy Fogel put a hold on further executions over concerns about the state's
3-drug protocol for putting inmates to death. More than a decade later,
California has still not given final approval to a new procedure. Even before
that latest legal delay, the average time between conviction and an execution
was about 20 years.
The number of death sentences handed down each year in California has been
declining since peaking at 38 in 1999. Last year 14 death sentences were
returned, and so far this year there have been only 6, including 1 last month
in Alameda County.
Geography matters a lot, too. Los Angeles, California's largest county, also
has given out the most death sentences - 267 since 1978. But a few smaller
counties, including Riverside, Kern and San Bernardino, are responsible for a
disproportionate number of them.
Number of People Sentenced to Death in California Since 1978
Death penalty opponents say capital punishment can't be fixed and should be
scrapped. They argue it's too expensive, doesn't deter crime or provide any
relief to crime victims' families. And, they say there's always the chance
legal errors could lead to the execution of an innocent person.
Proposition 62 would replace all existing death sentences with life in prison
without the possibility of parole. The inmates would also have to work while
behind bars, with some of their wages going to pay restitution to their
victims.
The last time a measure to ban capital punishment was on the ballot was 2012,
when voters rejected Proposition 34 by 53 to 47 %. This time around a Field
Poll in mid-September showed Proposition 62 leading but still short of the 50 %
needed to pass.
(source: capradio.org)
***************
Speaker: Death penalty 'ultimate insult to human dignity'
Anti-death-penalty activist and actor Mike Farrell opened up the Archdiocese of
San Francisco's Reentry Conference and Resource Fair on Oct. 1, telling his
audience why he considers the death penalty "the ultimate insult to human
dignity."
"I've come to see the death penalty as the lid on the garbage can of the
criminal justice system," he said. "Once we take that lid off people will have
to look into this rotten, stinking, maggot-infested mess that is this system
and do something about it."
The 1-day conference hosted by the archdiocese's restorative justice office
included a series of panel discussions with faith leaders, city and county
criminal justice experts, lawyers and judges, anti-death penalty activists,
homelessness and mental-health experts and others working in restorative
justice. Over 30 exhibitors offered resources.
The former "MASH" cast member filled in at the last minute for death-penalty
opponent St. Joseph Sister Helen Prejean, who had to cancel her keynote
appearance to attend to her dying sister.
After decades of volunteer work with recovering addicts, alcoholics and
"thieves and whores" who reclaimed their lives, Farrell said he saw that all
human beings want the same things, "love, attention and respect." Those raised
without those things can spend a lifetime seeking it in destructive ways.
As president of the board of Death Penalty Focus, a death penalty alternative
organization, Farrell is campaigning in support of Proposition 62, The Justice
That Works initiative on the 2016 ballot.
"Anyone that looks seriously at the death penalty in this country cannot escape
knowing it is racist in application, used primarily against the poor and poorly
defended, and expensive - 18 times more expensive here in California than life
without parole - and it often entraps and kills the innocent."
Most of us "don't know the ugly stuff," said Farrell, but those who do take a
serious look at the process, "they know." Police and prosecutors rationalize
and argue, sometimes even admitting they know the truth, he said. But they say
it's the law.
"And it is the law," said Farrell. But laws can be changed when we learn that
they don't work are in fact, doing more harm than good.
"That's what we need to do with this one," he said, because too many people
don't understand the harm the death penalty does to all of us.
"There is an inevitable, inescapable consequence associated with the taking of
a human life," he said. "The person being killed pays a price, of course, but
what price is paid for those doing the killing? What is the cost to the society
that hires people to kill for them? The moral cost."
(source: Catholic San Francisco)
USA:
Judge trying to avoid family stress in church shooting trial
The federal judge in the trial of Dylann Roof in the Charleston church
shootings says he wants to avoid undue stress on the victims' families.
During a hearing in chambers last Friday, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel
discussed court plans to recess during the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New
Year's holidays. An attorney representing families of the victims said some
plan to be out of town during that time.
Gergel assured him the trial would break and said there's plenty of stress and
tragedy in the case without lawyers and the court adding to it. A transcript
was released Monday.
Jury selection continues in November.
The 22-year-old Roof faces the death penalty if convicted on federal charges in
the shooting deaths of nine people at Emanuel AME Church in June, 2015.
(source: Associated Press)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
